Registered: Mar 2000
Location: nowheresburg, PH
Posts: 98

hmmm.... i can't imagine putting the toothcap mic on.... it'll just make weird salivary sounds when you speak.... eeeewwwww.

Registered: Nov 1999
Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Posts: 434

I for one will try to avoid BlueTooth until the reported problems of trying to use it with a computer with a wireless 802.11 network are solved (or disproved), since I am considering "wiring" my home with such a network.

For now to be honest I would have to say that 50 metres of range with an iBook is potentially much more enticing to me than 2 metres of BlueTooth with my Visor. Heck, if I need to hook up my GSM phone, I'll just plug it in (if those modules ever come out), or if I need to sync, I will just stick it in the cradle.

As for info confirming BlueTooth interferes with 802.11, it's supposedly true. I read an article quoting a BlueTooth rep that there are some "growing pains" with this issue. Also, reviews of the Apple Airport show that 2.4 GHz phones and even microwave ovens can dramatically decrease data transfer rates. Actually, I've avoided getting 2.4 GHz phones for this reason too.

Hopefully they'll work out the kinks though, so Bluetooth and 802.11 can peacefully coexist, because both are the "wave" of the future. :P

------------------
Eugene Hsieh
Editor, VisorCentral FAQ
Come visit my homepage.

[This message has been edited by Eug (edited 06-15-2000).]

Registered: May 2000
Location: Oshawa, Ontario, Canada
Posts: 3

quote:

---

Originally posted by andrewlpc:
ok... here we go... !!

a blue tooth TOOTH INSERT microphone.

that's right... put right inside or connected to your tooth.

Then you put a blue tooth speaker in your ear...

what do you have? An invisable cell phone head set.

People will think you are pretty crazy when you are talking to yourself (they already do when I have my headset on).

This is totally doable in a year or so I think.

Any other ideas like this?

---

Registered: Nov 1999
Location: Redwood City CA
Posts: 472

quote:

---

Originally posted by andrewlpc:
Any other ideas like this?

---

Registered: Nov 1999
Location: bright side of the moon.
Posts: 996

http://www.palminfocenter.com/view_Story.asp?ID=973

this is how Palm will handle privacy issues with bluetooth....earlier posts discussed SPAM through bluetooth at conferences..

Registered: Sep 1999
Location: at work...
Posts: 736

Actually, there's no need for this. If you have seen the JABRA earpiece for cellphones, the technology already exists to have the earpiece pick up what you are saying through the vibrations in your ear. So you only need a single bluetooth-enabled earpiece for full voice communication and voice recognition through your PDA!

quote:

---

Originally posted by andrewlpc:
ok... here we go... !!

a blue tooth TOOTH INSERT microphone.

that's right... put right inside or connected to your tooth.

Then you put a blue tooth speaker in your ear...

what do you have? An invisable cell phone head set.

People will think you are pretty crazy when you are talking to yourself (they already do when I have my headset on).

This is totally doable in a year or so I think.

Any other ideas like this?

---

Registered: Nov 1999
Location: San Francisco, CA, USA
Posts: 9

Folks,
Two things;
- I think people are confusing Bluetooth as a wireless ethernet replacement, which I do not think it was intended for. 802.11 is 10x faster and much more capable.
- The real power of bluetooth will be its simplicity and transparency. No longer will you need to activity sync; any of your devices in bluetooth space will keep each other up to date, given the applications are improved to support this. This is enough in itself to look forward to bluetooth.

-Pete

Registered: Oct 1999
Location: College Station, TX
Posts: 143

pmax has a good point - also, this thread has inspired me (OK, my need to procrastinate also inspired me) to check out what's out on the web regarding bluetooth:

1) Although it's hard to disprove when vaporware is involved - I think the idea that Bluetooth and 802.11 will interfere with one another is a question evolving into a fact on this thread. I'm pretty sure that both of them use DSS technology and are resistant to interference by one another and by other overlapping networks of the same kind. In other words, the people developing Bluetooth aren't that dumb - after all, one of the Bluetooth SIG members is Lucent, who also sell 802.11 networks. I'm giving odds on no interference.

2) The Bluetooth SIG says the spec is for 10 meters as the standard, not 2 meters.

3) The reason 802.11 doesn't supercede Bluetooth is that Bluetooth is a spec designed for low power consumption. Bluetooth devices will have shorter range because they will be small things that run off small batteries, like the ones in your Visor. Bluetooth has active power management to keep the signal strength to the minimum needed for an application. For an 802.11 device that's plugged into a wall, more power means more range and better quality, so let 'er rip.

One of the main things that the Bluetooth SIG talks about is Bluetooth as a way to get rid of all kinds of cables - most of these are <10 meters. Examples they gave:

Cell phone - or PDA - on your belt to headset on your head.

Cell phone in your briefcase at your feet to laptop on the table in a conference.

Portable electronics communicating with each other - Visor playlist to separate MP3 player to headset while jogging?

I'm not sure about this, but it also seemed like Bluetooth was designed to have overlapping wireless networks cooperate to increase data transfer rates...they talk about piconets (8 interconnected devices) intermeshed with scatternets (connected piconets)

see: http://www.bluetooth.com/developer/...on/overview.asp

I'm not sure how this will work in practice, but it sounds cool...I'm still going to wait for someone else to try this before I buy one though...

Registered: Apr 2000
Location: Urbana, IL
Posts: 99

If bluetooth interferes with my 802.11 network, there'll be hell to pay!

Registered: Oct 1999
Location: Kansas City, MO
Posts: 295

The 802.11 spec must use the same frequencies as Bluetooth because the FCC allocates only two frequency ranges as being available for unlicensed use. Those will be in the 900MHz range (popular for cordless phones), and the 2.4GHz range, which is where most of the 802.11 will fall. The transmissions must also be 1 Watt or less. Conflicts will be avoided by using different channels within the unlicensed ranges. Many solutions will also use Digital Spread Spectrum signals which will also reduce "crosstalk". The real problem will come within the next few years when these frequencies become overloaded. The FCC is going to have to release additional unlicensed frequencies in order to satisfy the need for low power wireless transmissions.

------------------
<><

[This message has been edited by LanMan (edited 06-19-2000).]